It is a misunderstanding as to how to make statistics.
The original gender pay gap that they've basically been itterating on ever since conflated secretaries at coal mines with coal miners...
Noting that the coal miners and secretaries both worked at the same company and the men made more.
Never mind they were literally dying of black lung 500 feet under the earth in a grimy hole whilst the women were in casual professional dress in clean offices answering phones.
There is about as much science behind it as Christian Creationism.
Go into the math and methodology. It is intellectually bankrupt.
Again, why would a rules based system even consider those variables?
Sure, a machine learning system could do that but those are badly suited to this sort of task in the first place.
If I have a rules based system and it is looking at 500 known variables let us say... and none of them are gendered...
Let us just cut to the chase here, is there any situation where you'd accept more men than women being hired statistically? I mean, is the only acceptable answer for why that would happen "sexism"?
Why are there more male lumber jacks?
Why are their more male crab fishermen?
Why isn't that sexist?
Just because some people find a given job desirable because it has a high pay check doesn't mean they are qualified for it or even want it once they get it.
Lots of women get into these STEM jobs and then quit. Much more often then men.
And here people will again say "sexism" but that isn't what the women say typically. What they say is that the job is boring or has long hours or is socially isolating or something.
And that doesn't mean the company is sexist.
A big tell on this matter is that you only see this huge gender imbalance in RICH countries.
Which is 180 degrees from what you'd think. Wouldn't you think India and China were more sexist?
And why is it that the more options women have they more these gender imbalances build up?
Point blank, women clearly are self selection out of these industries. The data bears that out.
That being the case, you have to refactor your statistics to not take into consideration the ratio of males to females in society at large but rather the ratio of males to female that want to do this job... that is exclude women that don't want to do the work from the female population.
Likewise exclude the men on the same criteria.
And whilst you're at it, it can be stomached... exclude everyone of any gender that doesn't have the qualifications.
If you have neither the interest nor the aptitude then you can't be considered in the general statistics for the avaliable labor pool for that job. Because you are not interested in the job... therefore no avaliable for it... and will not apply for it or will not remain in that job if hired... and IF not qualified then you will fail that criteria of job application and thus should be screened from the overall statistics again.
This whole thing is basically ideological people using statistics deceitfully. Examples of this on this issue go back at least to the 1970s.
Purge any submission to the system of a gender identifier... women's or men's anything... remove names in case that is factored... literally provide nothing in the submission that would definitively define a gender.
Then see what it does.
My experience with these systems is that they don't actually factor gender but that the end result of is that there is a gender imbalance.
However, if there is an imbalance and the system was given no indication as to gender then there is no gender bias.
You can't cite persecution or preference if the system can't even know. And generally these fairly common and consistent imbalances are made without reference to gender itself.
Generally it is factoring on other criteria that give the same result but which are not gender. Work experience is a big one... breadth of skill set is another.
And if you took the total population and look at which portion of the population had that work experience and breadth of knowledge, you'd find it more closely matched the hiring patterns of these systems. Which means it isn't factoring on gender.
Now... this is assumption to some extent on my part. I've audited these systems in the past and what I am describing above is the pattern I've seen.
As to what the Amazon system was doing... I'd have to audit it.
What I'd probably try is a word replacement/purge of all terms that would signify gender or I'd just change a bunch of rejected female resumes to say they were male and see if they got accepted and vice versa.
If the system actually changed its decision based on gender then that's a smoking gun that it is doing things on the basis of gender.
But I'd find that very surprising.
Machine learning is unpredictable so I'm hardly going to claim to know what the damned thing was doing. For that reason I wouldn't actually use machine learning in this application. I'd use a very clear rules based system where everything it was doing was known to the programmers.
Those systems are completely fine for this sort of work and you can very easily audit the code for them.
The best way to deal with this is to first be gender blind. You literally do not factor for gender at all.
That will give you an imbalance probably... you can make as many diversity hires as you need to after that. But your core hiring pool should be merit based unless you want to go out of business.
I addressed his post and indifferent to that he was needlessly and without provocation rude about his comment.
We've already done this... are you going to pretend that your hostility is in regards to this post or will you concede that you're just a butthurt troll following me around this site under an AC cloak?
Just wondering if you're going to admit the obvious here.
No, someone said something to me and I responded in kind.
When you chuckleheads come at me with your mindless reeing hostility, I tend to insult you back and laugh.
Some guy comes at me and says something I respond back at him the same way.
Why don't you try it? You'll find that unlike you, I don't hold grudges because I don't care about you.
Your beef with me, means nothing to me. I don't care. And because I don't care, I can forget it if you stop reminding me how triggered you are every ten seconds. Just come at me like a somewhat intelligent and reasonable individual and you'll find that I respond in kind.
Be a raging douchebag and I really don't see why you're surprised that I treat you like one.
I suspect you can't get over it... because you're triggered and I'm not. But if you can get over yourself, you might find we can have some good discussions.
Choice is yours.
And no, unlike you, I don't use sock puppet accounts to hide my bad behavior. That's you. Be better. And appreciate that not all of us have sunk to your level. You can improve. I have faith in you. Seriously. I don't think you're irredeemable. Which doesn't mean you won't disappoint me in this thread or the next 100 threads. But I think you'll come around eventually.
Want a battery factory in your neighborhood or do you want to walk that bullshit back?
There is a reason most of this stuff is manufactured in places with lax to no environmental regulation.
Which is ironic because you guys seem so keen on the environment... and yet you rely on China and India basically not applying any of those ethics to produce your products with any kind of economy.
And to make things funnier... they power the factories to do this with Coal and Nuclear. You'd think a solar power panel company would be swimming in their own cheap solar. But they're not. Same with wind... how many wind mill factories are powered by wind power? What is the argument here? No sun or wind in china? Anywhere? They could install some solar and wind elsewhere in china and be carbon neutral for the plant.
They're not for some reason... Weird, huh?
Tells all you need to know.
I almost got baited into putting links in here... you almost got me. You haven't posted any links... so I'm not going to either.
As one Californian to another, know that I've had more than my fill of conversations with enviro-cultists.
I "ACTUALLY" care about the environment. I'd like for us to track emissions and environmental compliance of all imports. I'd like us to stop shutting down relatively environmentally friendly US production on environmental grounds only to have much dirtier production started in another country.
I'd like to de-politicize environmental policy by not using it as a political bludgeon by one political faction against another. We all breath the same air, we all drink the same water, we all eat the same food. Whatever your political tribe, we all care about the environment.
As to being a rabid AGW guy... It is obviously dramatically over hyped. As I made clear in my first post, the news is full of these stupid articles every day blaming every weather event, flu, etc on global warming. You've seen them too, don't lie.
That being the case, the media has no credibility on the matter and neither do many of the advocacy groups that push those articles for propaganda.
If the position hadn't been over stated, if debate had been welcomed, if contradiction and correction were accepted... then a legitimate discussion could occur on the matter. But every suggestion that such a thing occur is met with hostility.
So there won't be a discussion. We'll just power politics at each other ON THAT ISSUE until you again appreciate that you MUST tolerate debate. If you don't, then that doesn't mean opposition submits it just means you are robbed of the opportunity to discuss the issue.
But that is merely one environmental issue. We can talk about GMO, we can talk about deforestation. I even want to save the whales.;-D
Also, correcting one of my typos in an internet thread doesn't make you seem intellectually superior or myself inferior... it just reads at petty. FYI. Just so you know.
I don't use sock puppets unlike you. I just post under this account.
The fact that sad trolls like you follow me from thread to thread posting under AC whenever you're too cowardly to at least let it be known "why" you're upset with me.
I once had one of you sad fellows try this little game for FIVE years... on THIS site. Same guy followed me from thread to thread for five years making shitty little comments like yours.
I took the whole thing as a badge of honor. Very few people can legitimately claim to have been trolled by the same butt hurt slashdot poster... or anyone on social media for five years straight.
I really get you little morons to Reee hard, don't I?:-D
Anyway, stay angry. I'm sure your eVendettas will fill that hole in your life at some point.
He suggested I hadn't read it at all thus calling me a liar in the first sentence.
I have no problem with being corrected. Calling me a liar however was unprovoked and rude.
I actually liked that he went through the information and it was too bad that he started off so badly because we could have otherwise possibly had a discussion about it.
For example, his correction is "In other words they identified several metabolites that had altered expression in response to the administration of artificial sweetener (vs control). " does that connotate "toxicity"? Not at all. So his correction was a non sequitur. A point I would have happily discussed with him had he not called me a liar in his first sentence.
Someone does that and they're just baiting a flame war.
As to dosage, it has relevance for whether there is a health problem. Anything taken to excess is going to cause problems. If you take the sweet and low to an excess then sure... issues.
The clickbait title was "Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria ".
If you administer 2.5 times the dose... and what you get is ""In other words they identified several metabolites that had altered expression in response to the administration of artificial sweetener (vs control). "" this is not toxicity.
It should be noted that the paper said that both sets of mice were outwardly healthy and had the same behavior.
The problem is that you're not going to get CO2 emissions significantly down absent nuclear power.
And anti nuclear activism of which you've apparently completely fallen for is a good litmus test for ideological zealotry on environmental issues.
Nuclear power is actually very safe with most of the problems being extreme outlier contexts. The Chernobyl for example was a very old reactor design that had its safeties intentionally turned off. It was a worst case scenario. It was effectively sabotage some some insane soviet engineers.
The other incidents have had negligible environmental consequences on top of being very old reactor designs as well.
We have much better reactor designs now. We don't need to have huge reactors. We can create fail safe designs that cannot melt down or crack their casings.
Your renewables are hardly better environmentally if you consider other pollutants. The solar and wind options are increasingly requiring batteries... which tends to mean heavy metals... and the electronics often demand lots of rare earths. Lithium is quite a bit rarer than is petroleum.
What is more, there are land use issues with your applications. As it typical, you will slavishly advocate large solar and wind farms because that fits into the public works fraud schemes that seem to always go along with these things. This is despite the fact that on site solar and wind is dramatically more efficient. Dumping solar and wind into the general grid is inefficient when the power is defuse, can be sourced at site of use, and there are huge inefficiencies to shifting between DC and AC to say nothing of transmission loss.
You're basically one of those sad people that signs a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide at an environmental rally.
Grow up. This mindless zealotry might have cowed the baby boomer generation but that weakness wanes every day.
... if you read the paper... they are administering 2.5 times the FDA recommended dose of Sweat and Low... the mice showed no signs of ill health or altered behavior... and the "toxic" is a little bit of a stretch... there were changes in gut bacteria populations but that happens whenever you change a diet to anything else.
Did someone else get a different read on this thing? I went through the "method" section which is where I always start whenever I read a paper. Straight to the method... aka what did you actually do?
I asked you to point at what you were vaguely suggesting existed... but which you still haven't actually brought forward.
I could as easily say you're wrong and cite: www.google.com
Kindly point at what specifically you're referring to so it can be audited. Whilst some people feel that being vague has rhetorical value in that it is hard to know if someone is wrong and very hard to prove someone wrong when they are very vague... it also renders your argument effectively incoherent.
I say for the second post in a row to you, what specifically are you citing? Or shall I just refute your position with my link of www.google.com?
As to the phase out of nuclear power, it is mostly political. You can see it is not being phased out in China or Russia or other places where your cult has no particular sway.
As to you having no god, you've a very clear ideological paradigm that is the controlling factor in your stance on these issues. Memetically, there is no distinction between a classical religion and an ideological framework of that nature.
Thus... you do have a god... it is just a really boring one.
As to your citations, what in those would you like to draw attention to specifically?
That there is "some" renewable energy? Not in dispute. That it is a laughable portion of their total system and makes up a very small portion of what their future construction will use.
Read your own citations and show me otherwise.
As to attempting to mirror, a mindless defense.
The reality is that nuclear can take the full load of what we produce from coal, gas, etc and renewables cannot. Nuclear can provide 24 hours 7 days a week, 365 days a year power.
Renewables cannot do that and even what little they can do is at best highly uneconomical.
Now, given that you've outed yourself as a tribal zealot that cares little for the environment and instead sees this in purely ideological terms... I'll simply leave you with this...
Your god is a lie and I will not drink your koolaid.;-)
First, nice to know you care more about your anti nuclear position than you do about boiling the earth with CO2.
Second, renewables are not ready for rollout in the developing world and on that basis alone fail to solve the problem. Nuclear with some security concerns addressed could do that. It is why you see this tech happening in China and India but renewables are not economical and thus are not invested in to any great extent in these countries.
Third, the developed world can deploy renewables at great expense. The advocates of these technologies are often create unrealistic projections which ironically retard adoption. If they were more honest about how this stuff worked there would be less anxity in its introduction. But they're cultists and can't be reached with reason.
Fourth, whilst the developing world CAN deploy this tech nuclear still makes more sense for the developed world which doesn't have the security concerns of the developing world and can rapidly address its energy needs via this technology.
So sure... I'm totally for renewables in moderation along with other effective technologies deployed sensibly.
IF you're not willing to be sensible on the matter though then you've more or less outed yourself as not really caring about CO2 emissions. Nuclear can address this issue. Renewables cannot.
Resist nuclear and you're as much to blame for the CO2 emissions as the Saudi oil fields.
As you're aware, that ethic is dead. I lament its passing but it is gone.
I don't expect ethics, integrity, or rational discourse from the cultists. All I expect is shrieking and cannibalism.
Sadly the only thing that will restore civility is the understanding that it nets no advantage to be hostile. And that requires aggressively and systematically responding to aggressive and systematic attacks.
There is no point in being civil when you're dealing with cannibals. They'll just throw you in their roasting pot and dance around the fire. You form ranks, keep a keen watch, and respond with maximum unflinching ferocity when they come to refill their meat pots.
Slashdot Mirror
We already know what it is:
https://youtu.be/v_pQ7KXv0o0?t...
It is a misunderstanding as to how to make statistics.
The original gender pay gap that they've basically been itterating on ever since conflated secretaries at coal mines with coal miners...
Noting that the coal miners and secretaries both worked at the same company and the men made more.
Never mind they were literally dying of black lung 500 feet under the earth in a grimy hole whilst the women were in casual professional dress in clean offices answering phones.
There is about as much science behind it as Christian Creationism.
Go into the math and methodology. It is intellectually bankrupt.
Again, why would a rules based system even consider those variables?
Sure, a machine learning system could do that but those are badly suited to this sort of task in the first place.
If I have a rules based system and it is looking at 500 known variables let us say... and none of them are gendered...
Let us just cut to the chase here, is there any situation where you'd accept more men than women being hired statistically? I mean, is the only acceptable answer for why that would happen "sexism"?
Why are there more male lumber jacks?
Why are their more male crab fishermen?
Why isn't that sexist?
Just because some people find a given job desirable because it has a high pay check doesn't mean they are qualified for it or even want it once they get it.
Lots of women get into these STEM jobs and then quit. Much more often then men.
And here people will again say "sexism" but that isn't what the women say typically. What they say is that the job is boring or has long hours or is socially isolating or something.
And that doesn't mean the company is sexist.
A big tell on this matter is that you only see this huge gender imbalance in RICH countries.
Which is 180 degrees from what you'd think. Wouldn't you think India and China were more sexist?
And why is it that the more options women have they more these gender imbalances build up?
Point blank, women clearly are self selection out of these industries. The data bears that out.
That being the case, you have to refactor your statistics to not take into consideration the ratio of males to females in society at large but rather the ratio of males to female that want to do this job... that is exclude women that don't want to do the work from the female population.
Likewise exclude the men on the same criteria.
And whilst you're at it, it can be stomached... exclude everyone of any gender that doesn't have the qualifications.
If you have neither the interest nor the aptitude then you can't be considered in the general statistics for the avaliable labor pool for that job. Because you are not interested in the job... therefore no avaliable for it... and will not apply for it or will not remain in that job if hired... and IF not qualified then you will fail that criteria of job application and thus should be screened from the overall statistics again.
This whole thing is basically ideological people using statistics deceitfully. Examples of this on this issue go back at least to the 1970s.
https://youtu.be/v_pQ7KXv0o0?t...
I mean, this is just fundamental. They've been playing with numbers and lying in really stupid ways for a long time.
Can we at least acknowledge that many accusations of sexism and racism are without integrity? Is it possible to acknowledge the obvious here?
We have a lot of people pushing for equality of outcome. That is unreasonable. They can't have equality of outcome and they won't get it.
And if that makes them unhappy, then that is their choice.
Close the book on it and move on.
Given that your example is less than a percent of submissions, for the case of the test we could remove those resumes entirely.
The point is to test whether the system is "actually" sexist or just hiring more men for NON-sexist reasons.
If the male candidates for example are more qualified then hiring them is not sexist.
That observation is politically incorrect but political correctness is often impractical.
We should remember that ideological considerations cannot take precedence over material reality.
Purge any submission to the system of a gender identifier... women's or men's anything... remove names in case that is factored... literally provide nothing in the submission that would definitively define a gender.
Then see what it does.
My experience with these systems is that they don't actually factor gender but that the end result of is that there is a gender imbalance.
However, if there is an imbalance and the system was given no indication as to gender then there is no gender bias.
You can't cite persecution or preference if the system can't even know. And generally these fairly common and consistent imbalances are made without reference to gender itself.
Generally it is factoring on other criteria that give the same result but which are not gender. Work experience is a big one... breadth of skill set is another.
And if you took the total population and look at which portion of the population had that work experience and breadth of knowledge, you'd find it more closely matched the hiring patterns of these systems. Which means it isn't factoring on gender.
Now... this is assumption to some extent on my part. I've audited these systems in the past and what I am describing above is the pattern I've seen.
As to what the Amazon system was doing... I'd have to audit it.
What I'd probably try is a word replacement/purge of all terms that would signify gender or I'd just change a bunch of rejected female resumes to say they were male and see if they got accepted and vice versa.
If the system actually changed its decision based on gender then that's a smoking gun that it is doing things on the basis of gender.
But I'd find that very surprising.
Machine learning is unpredictable so I'm hardly going to claim to know what the damned thing was doing. For that reason I wouldn't actually use machine learning in this application. I'd use a very clear rules based system where everything it was doing was known to the programmers.
Those systems are completely fine for this sort of work and you can very easily audit the code for them.
The best way to deal with this is to first be gender blind. You literally do not factor for gender at all.
That will give you an imbalance probably... you can make as many diversity hires as you need to after that. But your core hiring pool should be merit based unless you want to go out of business.
I addressed his point. You haven't addressed mine.
Unquestionably?
It is a good thing you're not a judge. Lot of innocent people would go to prison.
You have bad judgement and are pretty biased. Kindly take that into consideration for the future.
I am innocent, I don't use socks. You're wrong. I know you have bad judgement so you don't understand where you made the error.
You did. I don't use socks.
I don't use socks. Never have. Sorry.
Glad we both agree that people shouldn't be posting under AC though.
Oh shit, you're posting under AC.... might want to change that, brah.
I addressed his post and indifferent to that he was needlessly and without provocation rude about his comment.
We've already done this... are you going to pretend that your hostility is in regards to this post or will you concede that you're just a butthurt troll following me around this site under an AC cloak?
Just wondering if you're going to admit the obvious here.
No, someone said something to me and I responded in kind.
When you chuckleheads come at me with your mindless reeing hostility, I tend to insult you back and laugh.
Some guy comes at me and says something I respond back at him the same way.
Why don't you try it? You'll find that unlike you, I don't hold grudges because I don't care about you.
Your beef with me, means nothing to me. I don't care. And because I don't care, I can forget it if you stop reminding me how triggered you are every ten seconds. Just come at me like a somewhat intelligent and reasonable individual and you'll find that I respond in kind.
Be a raging douchebag and I really don't see why you're surprised that I treat you like one.
I suspect you can't get over it... because you're triggered and I'm not. But if you can get over yourself, you might find we can have some good discussions.
Choice is yours.
And no, unlike you, I don't use sock puppet accounts to hide my bad behavior. That's you. Be better. And appreciate that not all of us have sunk to your level. You can improve. I have faith in you. Seriously. I don't think you're irredeemable. Which doesn't mean you won't disappoint me in this thread or the next 100 threads. But I think you'll come around eventually.
Till then. ;-)
Look, troll I said this "Did someone else get a different read on this thing? "
You're mad probably because I ruined you in a past discussion and you're cowardly trolling my account under an AC sock account.
You think doing this doesn't just make my epeen harder? Be mad. It means I'm doing something right.
You are exactly the sort of person that should never be happy.
kiss kiss.
Get the business market and get the majority market share.
If you don't get the business market, then you won't get majority market share.
Want a battery factory in your neighborhood or do you want to walk that bullshit back?
There is a reason most of this stuff is manufactured in places with lax to no environmental regulation.
Which is ironic because you guys seem so keen on the environment... and yet you rely on China and India basically not applying any of those ethics to produce your products with any kind of economy.
And to make things funnier... they power the factories to do this with Coal and Nuclear. You'd think a solar power panel company would be swimming in their own cheap solar. But they're not. Same with wind... how many wind mill factories are powered by wind power? What is the argument here? No sun or wind in china? Anywhere? They could install some solar and wind elsewhere in china and be carbon neutral for the plant.
They're not for some reason... Weird, huh?
Tells all you need to know.
I almost got baited into putting links in here... you almost got me. You haven't posted any links... so I'm not going to either.
As one Californian to another, know that I've had more than my fill of conversations with enviro-cultists.
I "ACTUALLY" care about the environment. I'd like for us to track emissions and environmental compliance of all imports. I'd like us to stop shutting down relatively environmentally friendly US production on environmental grounds only to have much dirtier production started in another country.
I'd like to de-politicize environmental policy by not using it as a political bludgeon by one political faction against another. We all breath the same air, we all drink the same water, we all eat the same food. Whatever your political tribe, we all care about the environment.
As to being a rabid AGW guy... It is obviously dramatically over hyped. As I made clear in my first post, the news is full of these stupid articles every day blaming every weather event, flu, etc on global warming. You've seen them too, don't lie.
That being the case, the media has no credibility on the matter and neither do many of the advocacy groups that push those articles for propaganda.
If the position hadn't been over stated, if debate had been welcomed, if contradiction and correction were accepted... then a legitimate discussion could occur on the matter. But every suggestion that such a thing occur is met with hostility.
So there won't be a discussion. We'll just power politics at each other ON THAT ISSUE until you again appreciate that you MUST tolerate debate. If you don't, then that doesn't mean opposition submits it just means you are robbed of the opportunity to discuss the issue.
But that is merely one environmental issue. We can talk about GMO, we can talk about deforestation. I even want to save the whales. ;-D
Also, correcting one of my typos in an internet thread doesn't make you seem intellectually superior or myself inferior... it just reads at petty. FYI. Just so you know.
I don't use sock puppets unlike you. I just post under this account.
The fact that sad trolls like you follow me from thread to thread posting under AC whenever you're too cowardly to at least let it be known "why" you're upset with me.
I once had one of you sad fellows try this little game for FIVE years... on THIS site. Same guy followed me from thread to thread for five years making shitty little comments like yours.
I took the whole thing as a badge of honor. Very few people can legitimately claim to have been trolled by the same butt hurt slashdot poster... or anyone on social media for five years straight.
I really get you little morons to Reee hard, don't I? :-D
Anyway, stay angry. I'm sure your eVendettas will fill that hole in your life at some point.
He suggested I hadn't read it at all thus calling me a liar in the first sentence.
I have no problem with being corrected. Calling me a liar however was unprovoked and rude.
I actually liked that he went through the information and it was too bad that he started off so badly because we could have otherwise possibly had a discussion about it.
For example, his correction is "In other words they identified several metabolites that had altered expression in response to the administration of artificial sweetener (vs control). " does that connotate "toxicity"? Not at all. So his correction was a non sequitur. A point I would have happily discussed with him had he not called me a liar in his first sentence.
Someone does that and they're just baiting a flame war.
As to dosage, it has relevance for whether there is a health problem. Anything taken to excess is going to cause problems. If you take the sweet and low to an excess then sure... issues.
The clickbait title was "Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria ".
If you administer 2.5 times the dose... and what you get is ""In other words they identified several metabolites that had altered expression in response to the administration of artificial sweetener (vs control). "" this is not toxicity.
It should be noted that the paper said that both sets of mice were outwardly healthy and had the same behavior.
The problem is that you're not going to get CO2 emissions significantly down absent nuclear power.
And anti nuclear activism of which you've apparently completely fallen for is a good litmus test for ideological zealotry on environmental issues.
Nuclear power is actually very safe with most of the problems being extreme outlier contexts. The Chernobyl for example was a very old reactor design that had its safeties intentionally turned off. It was a worst case scenario. It was effectively sabotage some some insane soviet engineers.
The other incidents have had negligible environmental consequences on top of being very old reactor designs as well.
We have much better reactor designs now. We don't need to have huge reactors. We can create fail safe designs that cannot melt down or crack their casings.
Your renewables are hardly better environmentally if you consider other pollutants. The solar and wind options are increasingly requiring batteries... which tends to mean heavy metals... and the electronics often demand lots of rare earths. Lithium is quite a bit rarer than is petroleum.
What is more, there are land use issues with your applications. As it typical, you will slavishly advocate large solar and wind farms because that fits into the public works fraud schemes that seem to always go along with these things. This is despite the fact that on site solar and wind is dramatically more efficient. Dumping solar and wind into the general grid is inefficient when the power is defuse, can be sourced at site of use, and there are huge inefficiencies to shifting between DC and AC to say nothing of transmission loss.
You're basically one of those sad people that signs a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide at an environmental rally.
Grow up. This mindless zealotry might have cowed the baby boomer generation but that weakness wanes every day.
... Very odd hostile response.
Did I have sex with your wife?
Dave, is that you? Shit, how do you always find me!
... if you read the paper... they are administering 2.5 times the FDA recommended dose of Sweat and Low... the mice showed no signs of ill health or altered behavior... and the "toxic" is a little bit of a stretch... there were changes in gut bacteria populations but that happens whenever you change a diet to anything else.
Did someone else get a different read on this thing? I went through the "method" section which is where I always start whenever I read a paper. Straight to the method... aka what did you actually do?
I asked you to point at what you were vaguely suggesting existed... but which you still haven't actually brought forward.
I could as easily say you're wrong and cite: www.google.com
Kindly point at what specifically you're referring to so it can be audited. Whilst some people feel that being vague has rhetorical value in that it is hard to know if someone is wrong and very hard to prove someone wrong when they are very vague... it also renders your argument effectively incoherent.
I say for the second post in a row to you, what specifically are you citing? Or shall I just refute your position with my link of www.google.com?
As to the phase out of nuclear power, it is mostly political. You can see it is not being phased out in China or Russia or other places where your cult has no particular sway.
As to you having no god, you've a very clear ideological paradigm that is the controlling factor in your stance on these issues. Memetically, there is no distinction between a classical religion and an ideological framework of that nature.
Thus... you do have a god... it is just a really boring one.
As to your citations, what in those would you like to draw attention to specifically?
That there is "some" renewable energy? Not in dispute. That it is a laughable portion of their total system and makes up a very small portion of what their future construction will use.
Read your own citations and show me otherwise.
As to attempting to mirror, a mindless defense.
The reality is that nuclear can take the full load of what we produce from coal, gas, etc and renewables cannot. Nuclear can provide 24 hours 7 days a week, 365 days a year power.
Renewables cannot do that and even what little they can do is at best highly uneconomical.
Now, given that you've outed yourself as a tribal zealot that cares little for the environment and instead sees this in purely ideological terms... I'll simply leave you with this...
Your god is a lie and I will not drink your koolaid. ;-)
First, nice to know you care more about your anti nuclear position than you do about boiling the earth with CO2.
Second, renewables are not ready for rollout in the developing world and on that basis alone fail to solve the problem. Nuclear with some security concerns addressed could do that. It is why you see this tech happening in China and India but renewables are not economical and thus are not invested in to any great extent in these countries.
Third, the developed world can deploy renewables at great expense. The advocates of these technologies are often create unrealistic projections which ironically retard adoption. If they were more honest about how this stuff worked there would be less anxity in its introduction. But they're cultists and can't be reached with reason.
Fourth, whilst the developing world CAN deploy this tech nuclear still makes more sense for the developed world which doesn't have the security concerns of the developing world and can rapidly address its energy needs via this technology.
So sure... I'm totally for renewables in moderation along with other effective technologies deployed sensibly.
IF you're not willing to be sensible on the matter though then you've more or less outed yourself as not really caring about CO2 emissions. Nuclear can address this issue. Renewables cannot.
Resist nuclear and you're as much to blame for the CO2 emissions as the Saudi oil fields.
*shrugs*
So, you're in support of nuclear power?
Because we could do that to solve some of the problem.
When everyone stops breathing. Until then CO2 emissions will continue.
US numbers are down and consistently down.
Look around the world, very few countries anywhere in the world can make the same claim.
Bitch at them. We're not the problem.
As you're aware, that ethic is dead. I lament its passing but it is gone.
I don't expect ethics, integrity, or rational discourse from the cultists. All I expect is shrieking and cannibalism.
Sadly the only thing that will restore civility is the understanding that it nets no advantage to be hostile. And that requires aggressively and systematically responding to aggressive and systematic attacks.
There is no point in being civil when you're dealing with cannibals. They'll just throw you in their roasting pot and dance around the fire. You form ranks, keep a keen watch, and respond with maximum unflinching ferocity when they come to refill their meat pots.
Regards,
Old School Classical Liberal.
I meant to include this link... slashdot does not permit editing so... here it is:
https://www.technologyreview.c...